Read on Twitter
Putting across some thoughts:
Globally, we are living in a time when trust in govt, corporations, media, etc. is probably at its lowest in a long time. Why so, though? To me, it's because of three inter-dependent reasons.
A thread in which I explore the role of a phenomenon:
Globally, we are living in a time when trust in govt, corporations, media, etc. is probably at its lowest in a long time. Why so, though? To me, it's because of three inter-dependent reasons.
A thread in which I explore the role of a phenomenon:
1. Our access to information has grown exponentially, however, our capability to parse/digest the information to make sense of it has not. This has led to the rise of entities (mostly social media celebrities, new digital media, etc.) who champion the so-called "explainer model".
These entities don't just give you the information they also tell you how to "think" about it. The problem is that there is no "view from nowhere". For eg., a digital news portal does not simply tell you that CAA has been passed, but also "why it's problematic" in extension.
The problem is that content created under the explainer model is not couched as "opinion" but rather as "facts," which is a HUGE red flag. A twisted op-ed is still more acceptable than a twisted explainer, for I can choose to dismiss words marked "opinion" as just that.
The "explainer model" is now the go-to system for creating a lot of content, and thousands of podcasts, news portals, YouTube channels are dependent on it for sustaining their operations. What it has done is that it has armed us, consumers, with a false sense of knowledgeability.
When people start forming radical opinions on subjects based on Instagram stories by pop culture influencers telling you how to think about a subject -clearly outside their domain of expertise- under the garb of free speech, it's important to recognise the problem as a society.
For the first time in the history of humanity, so many people have the capability to interact with so many others. Earlier, this power was localised under few hands. For all its demerits, this system contained more order than disorder. Now, democratization of narrative is great.
BUT, it has birthed new problems. For the old elites have quickly co-opted the system, investing in developing capabilities that explain their position much better than anyone else's. This is great for it's easier to convince people under this model, once trust is established.
And consumers HAVE to establish trust in some entity to help then make sense of the overwhelming amount of information. This trust is an important weapon used by interests to turn other relationships the man has with his surrounding, suspect. This brings me to the second point.
2. Our trust capital has been monopolized by those who claim to explain in our best interest. This has diminished the allocation of limited trust capital in systems we don't interact with frequently (for eg., the govt. for many people) and institutions we're "told" to not trust.
This organized religion redux is nothing new, for propaganda has always existed. Earlier, propaganda was generally either controlled by State, or aided and abetted by State. Even the Bolsheviks wouldn't have won the propaganda war against the Tsarist without German backing.
Only now it has become easier for anyone with an audience to indulge in propoganda. The flow of information has allowed a dystopian cross-pollination of ideas with facts and non-facts which routinely gives us content with skillfully woven narratives, presented as the final truth.
Because it's harder to hold contradictory opinions on a subject, explainers make it easy for us by giving us a thought-out opinion as a fact for us to further build our own layers of opinion on, thus directing us in one direction without us even noticing the built-in biases.
Here's where I agree with R. Jagannathan: digital media houses should drop the pretence of neutrality, when their entire business model is I+ and J-. In fact, I'd extend this request to all influencers. Otherwise, they should have the honesty to present opinion as just that.
Finally:
3. We are living in a world in which social media forces us to constantly and even selectively focus on the "micro" rather than the "macro" as a building block for thinking. The impetus on "micro" comes from the need to build a 280-character/60-seconds narrative quickly.
3. We are living in a world in which social media forces us to constantly and even selectively focus on the "micro" rather than the "macro" as a building block for thinking. The impetus on "micro" comes from the need to build a 280-character/60-seconds narrative quickly.
So, Yorkshire Tea=Racist Brexiter because Rishi Sunak posts a photo with a bag of the tea. Caution to the wind, context to the grave, the first impulse is to build narrative. Now, I'm not saying that people/entities/govt. don't deserve to be called out, but not in lieu of sanity.
This extreme edginess online seriously impairs our capability to disconnect, re-evaluate our position in reality and take stock of the big picture, thus depriving us the option of course correction. It also makes us indifferent to voices that seem "normative", even "positive".
The unhappiness of being on social media further erodes our confidence in systems we don't interact with frequently, thus completing a fateful cycle in which we lose more than we gain.
The truth is that we don't always get what we want, and we can't always understand everything.
The truth is that we don't always get what we want, and we can't always understand everything.
However, it's very important to not outsource our thinking and our quest for the truth to others entirety, without appropriately preparing for the impact it may have on how we interact with society, people, and even government. It's also very very important to take a break. End.
Simple case in point: https://twitter.com/scroll_in/status/1234717892563746818?s=19
